Global Warming

[Rokerijdude11]

Yep.

By the way, in the 60's and 70's good old al was telling us that we would soon be freezing in an ice age.



20 years ago, a climate scientist might be able to make 25 or 30K a year if they could land a job as a weatherman on a network. Today, via grant money, a climate scientist can make 6 figures no sweat so long as there is a crisis to keep the money rolling in. You don't think that there are plenty of sellouts out there who will gladly say whatever they need to say in order to live at the nice address and drive the flashy car.

Try and find a credible scientist who doesn't depend on grant money to buy his daily bread who believes the anthropogenic global warming hype.




The pseudoscience in good old al's movie has been thoroughly debunked. He has been challenged by a number of qualified scientists to debate his version of the facts and he won't get near any sort of actual debate.





Here is a simple (but accurate) chart showing the temperature cycles of the earth for the past 600 million years or so. Review it and tell me exactly what is particularly scary about our exit from the present ice age. The ice has been melting back for about 15,000 years and if past cycles are any indication, it is going to continue to melt until no ice exists anywhere.

Recorded history doesn't even go back to the time the ice age we still exiting started to end. That amount of time isn't even a blip.

And the earth isn't warming at the fastest rate in history. Good old al convienently leaves the medieval warm period out of his pseudoscientific view of global warming. Did you know that during that warm period, that grapes grew as far north as finland? The fact is that during the medieval warm period, it was quite a bit warmer than it is now.



There isn't even the smallest bit of evidence to suggest that we are exiting the present ice age in a manner that is any different from the way the earth has exited every ice age before.

Good ole al wants power over you. He and is buds are the modern equivalent of the old priests who knew when the eclipse was coming and used the information to hold power over those who didn't know anything about eclipses.




If we are going to spend money, then the money should be spent on technology that will make us more comfortable in the long summer that is coming. If past history is any indicator, it will be millions of years before the next ice age comes about.



First good old al and his buds predicted an ice age, then they predicted warming, then they realized that they couldn't just keep flip flopping back and forth, so they coined the phrase climate change so they would have their bases covered whatever happens next. They are frauds. Actual science doesn't support their theories.

bump for the new peeps

 

[Dave]

Fonz and Mr. Universe, since you are both pretty new here, I would like to pose the question to you, since nobody really answered it when I posted it before. If greenhouse gases are the reason behind global warming, why has the same global warming been observed on Mars? Scientists have also noticed a link to global temperature and the increase in sun spots and solar flares.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/642-2.html

http://www.rawls.org/Global_warming_omitted_var.htm

After reading the information I presented here, I think that it is safe to say that the Sun is the main variable in global warming, not mankind interference.

 

[Fonz]

Fonz and Mr. Universe, since you are both pretty new here, I would like to pose the question to you, since nobody really answered it when I posted it before. If greenhouse gases are the reason behind global warming, why has the same global warming been observed on Mars? Scientists have also noticed a link to global temperature and the increase in sun spots and solar flares.

After reading the information I presented here, I think that it is safe to say that the Sun is the main variable in global warming, not mankind interference.

First of all, I'm not claiming to be a climatologist or a scientist of any sort. I'm just a humble man who looks for the truth. IN the case of things that are beyond my education I resort to people that actually know what they are talking about. Like for instance in global warming.

From what I understand, your basic premise is wrong for two reasons. The first one being that Mars' atmosphere is considerably different than Earth's. In fact, Earth's atmosphere is incredibly thick compared to Mars'. Our atmosphere reflects something like 2/3'ds of all the suns radiation away from us. If mars has little to no atmosphere it would only make sense that it would experience more heat from the sun.

But perhaps the most damaging retort to this Mars argument is that it seems the supposed warming period is actually "based on faulty understanding of the data."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

 

[Fonz]

Yep.

By the way, in the 60's and 70's good old al was telling us that we would soon be freezing in an ice age.

20 years ago, a climate scientist might be able to make 25 or 30K a year if they could land a job as a weatherman on a network. Today, via grant money, a climate scientist can make 6 figures no sweat so long as there is a crisis to keep the money rolling in. You don't think that there are plenty of sellouts out there who will gladly say whatever they need to say in order to live at the nice address and drive the flashy car.

actually, this is untrue. There was some speculation about Global Cooling back in the 1970's (though it wasn't called that back then. The term was invited by Global Warming "skeptics" who wanted to make it look like a comparable theory was proposed back then). but it was only by a few scientists and never got close to the amount of research that's been done on Warming. It never gained the consensus of scientific support that Warming did, so it's unfair to imply that the mass of scientists were "telling us that we would soon be freezing in an ice age."

In fact, I think there was one actual scientific paper done on the idea of global cooling. All the rest were saying that they didn't know how the Earth would react.

This global cooling argument is simply one of those conspiracy theorys that the dum-dum's like to parrot because it makes them sound smart. In fact, its completely fallacious.

Oh, and not to mention its simply a logical fallacy to use the "science was wrong before" argument.

 

[Fonz]

EPA? Greenpeace?
EPA? Greenpeace?

well dont be so quick to write those off.

the Greenpeace sight was just a link to the study released by the Pentagon declaring that Global Warming was the biggest security threat that the UNited States faces.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

actually, this is untrue. There was some speculation about Global Cooling back in the 1970's (though it wasn't called that back then. The term was invited by Global Warming "skeptics" who wanted to make it look like a comparable theory was proposed back then). but it was only by a few scientists and never got close to the amount of research that's been done on Warming. It never gained the consensus of scientific support that Warming did, so it's unfair to imply that the mass of scientists were "telling us that we would soon be freezing in an ice age."

In fact, I think there was one actual scientific paper done on the idea of global cooling. All the rest were saying that they didn't know how the Earth would react.

This global cooling argument is simply one of those conspiracy theorys that the dum-dum's like to parrot because it makes them sound smart. In fact, its completely fallacious.

Oh, and not to mention its simply a logical fallacy to use the "science was wrong before" argument.

You are somewhat correct, Fonz, but I believe you are underplaying how widespread the "coming ice age" scare was. Our whole point in bringing up the global cooling alarmism of the 70s is to use it as an example of why we should be skeptical.

Environmentalist "the world is gonna end unless we do something drastic" scenarios are nothing knew.

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age."

The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool."

Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age."

The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

-“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”

-”The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.”

Tell me this doesn't sound familiar?

But many scientists laugh at the panic.
Doomsday prophecies grabbed headlines but have proven to be completely false. Similar pronouncements today about catastrophes due to human-induced climate change sound all too familiar.
But the media can't get enough of doomsday.

-- Harvard Biologist George Wald: "civilization will end within 15 to 30 years," and environmental doomsayer Paul Ehrlich predicted that four billion people--including 65 million American--would perish from famine in the 1980s

It was a certainty that by the year 2000, the world would be starving and out of energy.

That prediction has gone the way of so many others. But environmentalists continue to warn us that we face environmental disaster if we don't accept the economic disaster called the Kyoto treaty. Lawyers from the Natural Resources Defense Council (another environmental group with more lawyers than scientists) explain: "Sea levels will rise, flooding coastal areas." And Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," depicts a future in which cities are submerged by rising sea levels.

Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence my skepticism.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Fonz and Mr. Universe, since you are both pretty new here, I would like to pose the question to you, since nobody really answered it when I posted it before. If greenhouse gases are the reason behind global warming, why has the same global warming been observed on Mars? Scientists have also noticed a link to global temperature and the increase in sun spots and solar flares.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.stm

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/2003/split/642-2.html

http://www.rawls.org/Global_warming_omitted_var.htm

After reading the information I presented here, I think that it is safe to say that the Sun is the main variable in global warming, not mankind interference.

I dont know that any of us in this thread have ever disputed the Sun as being the main source of global warming? I know i sure havent.But then again I havent said man was causing global warming either?I am simply saying we have CONTRIBUTED to accelerated heating By
adding emmissions to the atmosphere

for instance in my many many discussions on chemtrails and my research it is CLEAR and decisive that AIR TRAFFIC is indeed contributing GREATLY to the warming effects by creating artificial cirrus banks trapping even more heat


although i when it comes to chemtrails see it entirely differently ...as in where they ARE ACTUALLY TRYING to DIVERT some of the Suns rays BEFORE they reach the planets surface.......anyways The sun is indeed the MAIN contributing factor Just Not the ONLY factor

 

[palerider]

actually, this is untrue. There was some speculation about Global Cooling back in the 1970's (though it wasn't called that back then. The term was invited by Global Warming "skeptics" who wanted to make it look like a comparable theory was proposed back then). but it was only by a few scientists and never got close to the amount of research that's been done on Warming. It never gained the consensus of scientific support that Warming did, so it's unfair to imply that the mass of scientists were "telling us that we would soon be freezing in an ice age."

In fact, I think there was one actual scientific paper done on the idea of global cooling. All the rest were saying that they didn't know how the Earth would react.

This global cooling argument is simply one of those conspiracy theorys that the dum-dum's like to parrot because it makes them sound smart. In fact, its completely fallacious.

Oh, and not to mention its simply a logical fallacy to use the "science was wrong before" argument.

Ahhh. Another name caller. Just what we need around here. The fact is that the global cooling scare was far more than "some speculation" I was there and an adult at the time. There were dire warnings of drastic declines in food production, and political strife resulting from food shortages. Hardly a day went by that this study or that study wasn't either on the front page, or in the A section of the news papers and good old walter cronkite warned us every night.

Scientists from numerous disiplines warned governments to begin implement emergency actions to head off the impending threat. Some of those actions are as follows:

The largest scale enterprise that has been discussed is that of transforming the Arctic into an ice-free ocean. As was noted earlier, this has been very carefully studied by the staff of the Main Geophysical Observatory in Leningrad.

The Soviet engineer, Borisov, has been the most active proponent of the much-publicized Bering Strait dam. The basic idea is to increase the inflow of warm Atlantic water by stopping or even reversing the present northward flow of colder Pacific water through the Bering Strait.

Two kinds of proposals have been discussed, a dam between Florida and Cuba, and weirs extending out from Newfoundland across the Grand Banks to deflect the Labrador current as well as the Gulf Stream.

The Pacific Ocean counterpart of the Gulf Stream is the warm Kuroshio Current, a small branch of which enters the Sea of Japan and exits to the Pacific between the Japanese islands. It has been proposed that the narrow mouth of Tatarsk Strait, where a flood tide alternates with an ebb tide, be regulated by a giant one-way 'water valve' to increase the inflow of the
warm Kuroshio Current to the Sea of Okhotsk and reduce the winter ice there.

Dams on the Ob, Yenisei and Angara rivers could create a lake east of the Urals that would be almost as large as the Caspian Sea. This lake could be drained southward to the Aral and Caspian Seas, irrigating a region about twice the area of the Caspian Sea. In terms of climatic effects, the presence of a large lake transforms the heat exchange between the surface and atmosphere. Of equal or greater importance in terms of climatic effects, is the
land region transformed from desert to growing fields, with accompanying changes in both its reflectivity and evaporation.

The proposed North American Water and Power Alliance is a smaller scale scheme. It would bring 100 million acre-feet2 per year of water from Alaska and Canada to be evaporated by irrigation in the western United States and Mexico. The possible climatic effects are highly speculative. For example, would the increased moisture in the air fall out again over the central United States, or would it be transported to some other region?

There were other schemes that were also considered seriously. The fact is that there was far more than "some speculation" about global cooling. Scientists from numerous disiplines jumped on the bandwagon. And there were a plethora of "scientific" papers done on the subject. Pseudoscientific is the more accurate term, just like the pseudoscience that passes for climate science today.

 

[Fonz]

Ahhh. Another name caller. Just what we need around here. The fact is that the global cooling scare was far more than "some speculation" I was there and an adult at the time. There were dire warnings of drastic declines in food production, and political strife resulting from food shortages. Hardly a day went by that this study or that study wasn't either on the front page, or in the A section of the news papers and good old walter cronkite warned us every night.

Scientists from numerous disiplines warned governments to begin implement emergency actions to head off the impending threat. Some of those actions are as follows:

The largest scale enterprise that has been discussed is that of transforming the Arctic into an ice-free ocean. As was noted earlier, this has been very carefully studied by the staff of the Main Geophysical Observatory in Leningrad.

The Soviet engineer, Borisov, has been the most active proponent of the much-publicized Bering Strait dam. The basic idea is to increase the inflow of warm Atlantic water by stopping or even reversing the present northward flow of colder Pacific water through the Bering Strait.

Two kinds of proposals have been discussed, a dam between Florida and Cuba, and weirs extending out from Newfoundland across the Grand Banks to deflect the Labrador current as well as the Gulf Stream.

The Pacific Ocean counterpart of the Gulf Stream is the warm Kuroshio Current, a small branch of which enters the Sea of Japan and exits to the Pacific between the Japanese islands. It has been proposed that the narrow mouth of Tatarsk Strait, where a flood tide alternates with an ebb tide, be regulated by a giant one-way 'water valve' to increase the inflow of the
warm Kuroshio Current to the Sea of Okhotsk and reduce the winter ice there.

Dams on the Ob, Yenisei and Angara rivers could create a lake east of the Urals that would be almost as large as the Caspian Sea. This lake could be drained southward to the Aral and Caspian Seas, irrigating a region about twice the area of the Caspian Sea. In terms of climatic effects, the presence of a large lake transforms the heat exchange between the surface and atmosphere. Of equal or greater importance in terms of climatic effects, is the
land region transformed from desert to growing fields, with accompanying changes in both its reflectivity and evaporation.

The proposed North American Water and Power Alliance is a smaller scale scheme. It would bring 100 million acre-feet2 per year of water from Alaska and Canada to be evaporated by irrigation in the western United States and Mexico. The possible climatic effects are highly speculative. For example, would the increased moisture in the air fall out again over the central United States, or would it be transported to some other region?

There were other schemes that were also considered seriously. The fact is that there was far more than "some speculation" about global cooling. Scientists from numerous disiplines jumped on the bandwagon. And there were a plethora of "scientific" papers done on the subject. Pseudoscientific is the more accurate term, just like the pseudoscience that passes for climate science today.

I tell you what, why don't you find me every scientific paper that was written on the idea of this cooling conspiracy that you beileve in.

Aww..hell I'll do it for you.

Rasool and Schneider (1971) - Examined the possible effects of greenhouse gases and particulate pollution (such as from aerosols) on the climate. They found that greenhouse gases would result in warming the Earth and particulate pollution in cooling it, and guessed the latter to be more likely. They estimated that sustained effects of particulate polluntants could decrease the temperature of Earth by up to 3.5°C, and if this went on for long enough, it could cause Earth to drop into another ice age. Note that they didn't actually predict this would happen, they just proposed it as a possible future scenario. Nowadays, most scientists are indeed predicting that the Earth is going to warm up.

National Academy of Sciences Report (1975) - Often claimed to show fear of Global Cooling. In fact, all it said was that it's possible for the climate to change, they didn't know in which way it might, and so we should research it more. No big fears there.

Okay, we have one actual paper which shows any support at all for the hypothesis of Global Cooling. That's it. Some hysteria, eh?

And once again, its simply illogical to use the "science was wrong before" argument. Your argument is not only flawed, but shows a direct ignorance of how science even works.

 

[mr universe]

yes, fonz, science does change, just like every other scientific discipline.

the more advanced wee get with our technology, the more we can learn about the Earth.

other peeps- In the 70s, how many weather satalites did we have in orbit? How many ocean bouys were in the north atlantic?

 

[mr universe]

did we have computers with the same processing power that wee have today?

 

[Fonz]

yes, fonz, science does change, just like every other scientific discipline.

the more advanced wee get with our technology, the more we can learn about the Earth.

other peeps- In the 70s, how many weather satalites did we have in orbit? How many ocean bouys were in the north atlantic?

Absolutely, Good Sir.

Your a Scholar and a Gentleman.

 

[Dave]

First of all, I'm not claiming to be a climatologist or a scientist of any sort. I'm just a humble man who looks for the truth. IN the case of things that are beyond my education I resort to people that actually know what they are talking about. Like for instance in global warming.

From what I understand, your basic premise is wrong for two reasons. The first one being that Mars' atmosphere is considerably different than Earth's. In fact, Earth's atmosphere is incredibly thick compared to Mars'. Our atmosphere reflects something like 2/3'ds of all the suns radiation away from us. If mars has little to no atmosphere it would only make sense that it would experience more heat from the sun.

But perhaps the most damaging retort to this Mars argument is that it seems the supposed warming period is actually "based on faulty understanding of the data."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.

The writer of the article you posted seems to be the one misunderstanding the date. He seems to think that the southern pole completely melting is limited only to the southern pole. All of Mars is experiencing changes, but it is most severe at the southern pole. The writer even tries to throw out the idea that dust storms are responsible for the climate change on the rest of Mars after he already said that the rest of Mars wasn't changing. He doesn't even seem to be willing to acknowledge the fact that the ice has already disipated in most of Mars's southern hemisphere. I'm just speculating here, but the tilt on Mars's axis seems to be the easy explanation here.

Rokerijdude, if we agree the sun is the main variable for why there has been a rise in global temperature, why do you keep pushing for reduction in cO2 emissions?

Here's another link explaining why cO2 production could not cause major temperature shifts.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=069cb5b2-7d81-4a8e-825d-56e0f112aeb5&k=0

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Im not pushing for anything ? what is with you people at this website? WHERE did i say that we needed to reduce emissions? where did i push for that? I DIDNT what are You paleriders alter ego or what?


I am simply stating that I feel that we have been a contributing factor to warming.............yes bub the SUN is OBVIOUSLY the MAIN driving force in Global warming

which if you payed attention to what i wrote youd Know that I have always Concurred that Global warming is a NATURAL occurance............. I never stated we were responsible for it ....


Or that we started or created it Global warming is what makes tha planet habitable ....without it this would be a giant ball of ice.global warming was here before man and will be here after man provided we dont destroy the planet first


your arguments as well as pale riders are ridiculous its tantamount to saying theres nothing wrong with polluting the earth with chemical run -offs petroleum products spent uranium and just plain Pollution

its like saying none of these things matter the globe heals itself dump all the oil and chemicals you want into the water table throw garbage wherever youd like and dump that Toxic waste in the first hole you see

its ok it wont affect the globe...even though we have reams of proof to show iotherwise.....forget it just Dumpa away


your saying the same thing about emissions which is one of the greatest forms of pollution present in todays world

 

[Dave]

I assumed you included cO2 emissions in your broad description of pollution.